Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCy Aishroarya vs A.S.Sarattana Kartlrik Shal held as follows

,..RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.p_C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiteo therewiih, it" irs;i"court may be preased to *TTHDRAW the FC.o.p.No.loe ;i-2bzi,-trori"tt" fire of the court of the ffiv;31r,,#di[i,*,#t:**!ltrrit*':.".#1:r"f ,T[g lA l,lO: 't OF 2025 Petition under section_'tS'r of c p-c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne'peiiiron, tne High court mav be pleased to STAy all further proceedings in f.C.b.p.'f.fo. fiB ot 2025,from the fite of the Court of the I Additionat famifyiuJge, -HlieraOaO. Counsel for the petitioner SRI. K SAI BABU Counsel for the Respondents NONE APPERARED The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.108 of 2025 ORDER: This l-rar-rsfer. Civil Miscelianeous Petition is filed bv the petitior.rer-n,ite sccking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.10B of 2025 from the file of the I Acic'litional Family Judge, Hyderabad, fihrl by the respondent-hrrsbar-rd, to the Court of the VI AdditionaI District and Sessions ]uclge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy Disirict at Kuka tpaLIl'

2. I-leard Sri K. Sai tsabu, learned counsel for the pt:titioner and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, despite servicr, o[ notice and the matter is disposed basinl; on the material availablc on record

3. 'fhe brief facts leading to fihng of the present Tr.C lv'I.P. are tha(the rnarriage of the petiiioner-wife was solemnized rvith the respondent-htrsbancl on 18.08.2020 at lemon Tree Prernier, FIi- Tech City, Hvclerabad, as per thc prevailing customs ir Hindu Religion. After marriage, petitioner joined conjugal life rvith the respondent. Respor-rclent No.1 is working in film industry and earning a goocl amount of money and petitioner is a d:ctor at ) Tr C.tlP ,\'o 108 of )025 l,nA.t KIMS hospital and gives the entire salary to the respondent No.1. Later, disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No. and respondent No.1 started threatening the petitioner that he will divorce the petitioner and insisted her to give divorce. Family members of the respondent No.1 also started harassing the petitioner for no reason. Respondent No.1, stopped discharging his duties u, u htrrbu.rd and later with his eccentric, adamant attitude deserted petitioner by refusing to maintain.

4. Later, Respondent No:1, issued legal notice to the petitioner on for restitution of Conjugal Rights on 20.01.2025. Thereafter, petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.77 of 2025, before VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, seeking restitution of Conjugal Rights. Respondent No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.10B of ZOZS, before I Aqditional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, seeking divorce.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that that petitioner is residing with her parents at Kondapur and attending work at KIMS Hospital which is also at Kondapur, therefore, it is difficult to attend Court proceedings at Hyderabad. Learned ./ d rr^^n lnh w J ,-,\,A, J Tr.('MP No. t08 of 2025 counsel further contended that as the respondent No.1 is reriiding at Jubliee Hills, it $,ould be convenient for the petitioner an I also respondent to attend the Court cases at Kukatpally. -t lence, prayed to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025, to Kukatpally Court 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCy Aishroarya Vs. A.S.Sarattana Kartlrik Shal held as follows "9. The cordiml principle,for exercise of potoer unde.r Section ',14 of the Code o.f t.'.n'il Procedure is thnt the ends of justice slnuld denmnd the transt'er of tlrc suit, tppeal or other proceeding. In matrimoninl nntters, rulereter Courts ue calLed upon to cottside, the plea of trnnsfer', llrc Courts haoe to take into consideration the econontic soutdness of both tlrc pnrties, the social strata ol the spouses and tlrcir bclnttiournL pattern, their stnndard of life prior to the marringe nnd subsequent tfureto and the circumstances oJ both t(e porties in eking out tfuir liaeLihood nnd under ruhose prott't.tioe umbrella tlu,y trre scckirtg their sustennnce to lit'e. Giuen the preaailing socio- ecottomic parndign in the Indian society, geneally, it is the uife's r:ottt,uience ruhiclt must be looked nt uhile considering transfer." I 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 tr.cMl'.No.lU8 oJ 2025 a

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya,s case (2d cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay tn Deoika Dhiraj patit Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil o. Dhiraj Sunil patil2, and observed as under:- "In a country like india, important decisibns suclt as narriage, rliaorce nre still taken zoith the guidance and bbssings of elders in tla family. For a lady to traael done for the proceedings to a Court zohtre the fate of lrcr nmrriage is going to be decided zoitlrout any family mentber zoould definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only.'pltysical inconrtenience but also e no I ional a n d.psy chologi cal i n con ue n i e nce

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priyanka Rahul Patil zt. Rahul Raoindra Patilz followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishtoarya's case (2nd cited supra) and Deoika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deztika layprakash Buttepatil, s case (3rd cited supra), and held as follows:- 1 "TIrc underlying pinciple goaeming the proceedings unfur Section of the CPC, is thnt conoenience of the wife is to be preferred oaer the conaenience of tle husband.,, 2 pozz dontine Bom 1926) ' (2023 SCC Online Bom 1982) Pcsd/gh fr" -. ..- .i. I: .r ' ,, .. ., .) Tr.CMP.No.lAl o! .?025 L' '1. '1 g. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/ disPutes, while considering the applic rtion I for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another (--ourt, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife ovel' the convenience of the husband 10 In the present, case, a perusal of the record would disclose petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.77 of 2025, before VI Additional District and Sessions judge-cum-Family Court fudge, ltanga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for restitution of Conjugal Rights and Respondent No.1, filed F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 befrre I Addirional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, for Divorce. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate that both the F.C.O.Ps. be heard by one Court to avoid qonfl icting decisions

11. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble SuPreme Court and various other High Cotrrts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience ol the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/ preference ovc'r' the t t \ I convenience of the respondent/husband, this Transfer CMP deserves to be allorved.

12. Accordhgly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 pending on the file of before I Additional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, is withdrawn and transferred to the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for disposal in accordance with law.

13. The learned I $dditional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in [.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 duly indexed, to the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessiorx Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, pteferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Pending miscellaneous applications, tf any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Judge, I Additional Family Court, Hyde bad r

2. The Court of the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally. To, l

3. One CC to SRl. K SAI BABU, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies w Pcsd/gh - :.i'ra id;{taairir,r . HIGH COURT DATED: 1 510412025 ORDER TRCMP.No.108 oi,t 2025 oo IHI S Ta t _? 11 JUL 2ffi5 -.d * t tl[i 3r zI I ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION 6 y> 10 I t L I €